Running a homebrew for three fairly new players. I'm an experienced DM. But I'm still learning 5e though, so interested to hear opinions on the following encounter. Going into this encounter, the party was three 5th level PCs, one 3rd level NPC, and one 2nd level NPC. The setting is wooded mountains with a haunted glade/vale flavor.
The first time the party encountered a Banshee they were caught off guard and rolled poorly, so most of them went down to its Wail and had to be healed. This time, they know one is coming but they're low on resources and running. The Banshee's movement speed is too high though, and it eventually catches up to them. When it does, the party wizard, who is infamous for trying to interpret his spells to stretch any benefit of the doubt he can wring from them, turns in desperation and casts Tasha's Hideous Laughter.
The other players boo. I am skeptical. But I quickly reread the spell description, and the monster's condition immunities, and rule that the monster is immune to the prone condition, but still possibly affected by the fits of laughter. So I roll a Wisdom save for the Wailing Lady, it comes up an unadjusted 3, and I rule her incapacitated by the fits of laughter, but not prone, just hovering and laughing. The party maneuvers. I roll her another saving throw on her turn, and it's an unadjusted 1. So the laughter and maneuvers continue until someone attacks and she rolls a 17 with advantage and finally engages.
So, your opinions, please? Would you have ruled this differently? If so, how and why?
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
I am somewhat surprised that tasha's hideous laughter doesn't check on immunity to charmed. I think as written being immune to prone probably does block the spell (like many 5e spells, it's not a model of clarity) but I'd probably let it work.
i don't think immunity to prone would block the incapacitated because when two conditions are dependent on each other for example the Giant Wasp and hypnotic pattern say some thing like " is [dependent condition] while [independent condition] in this way." or " While [independent condition] by this spell, the creature is [dependent condition]"
edit: weird fact, monsters can still move while under the effect of hideous laughter neither the prone or incapacitated prevent movement. If prone their speed is halved because they must crawl , if not prone their speed isn't halved. So something immune to prone can move quicker while laughing basically.
I am somewhat surprised that tasha's hideous laughter doesn't check on immunity to charmed. I think as written being immune to prone probably does block the spell (like many 5e spells, it's not a model of clarity) but I'd probably let it work.
I went down the same road. The condition immunities are the only potential justifications I can see for not allowing it, and I don't find either of them convincing enough to overturn player agency and ingenuity.
Saying that the Banshee is unaffected by THL because of its immunity to being charmed would (just off the top of my head) open the door to anyone playing an elf to argue their racial ability granting them advantage on saves vs charm applies to the whole enchantment school.
Saying the Banshee is unaffected by THL because of its immunity to prone, while more convincing than the last argument, feels like ruling the letter of the law in clear violation of the spirit. The language of that one sentence, "...or fall prone, becoming incapacitated..." is the only place in the spell description which implies that incapacitation depends upon the prone condition. The rest of the wording of the spell's name and description imply that both conditions result from the "fits of laughter" that come with failing a wisdom save. The spell is not called Tasha's Hideous Knockdown, Tasha's Terrible Trip, or anything of the sort. And as Solarsyphon points out, there are counterexamples where one condition explicitly depends upon another.
It seemed to me then, and the consensus seems to be now, that the enchantment is targeted, the target gets a wisdom save, failing the save causes fits of laughter, fits of laughter cause both incapacitated and prone conditions independent of one another.
Thanks folks. I appreciate the benefit of your experience.
Running a homebrew for three fairly new players. I'm an experienced DM. But I'm still learning 5e though, so interested to hear opinions on the following encounter. Going into this encounter, the party was three 5th level PCs, one 3rd level NPC, and one 2nd level NPC. The setting is wooded mountains with a haunted glade/vale flavor.
The first time the party encountered a Banshee they were caught off guard and rolled poorly, so most of them went down to its Wail and had to be healed. This time, they know one is coming but they're low on resources and running. The Banshee's movement speed is too high though, and it eventually catches up to them. When it does, the party wizard, who is infamous for trying to interpret his spells to stretch any benefit of the doubt he can wring from them, turns in desperation and casts Tasha's Hideous Laughter.
The other players boo. I am skeptical. But I quickly reread the spell description, and the monster's condition immunities, and rule that the monster is immune to the prone condition, but still possibly affected by the fits of laughter. So I roll a Wisdom save for the Wailing Lady, it comes up an unadjusted 3, and I rule her incapacitated by the fits of laughter, but not prone, just hovering and laughing. The party maneuvers. I roll her another saving throw on her turn, and it's an unadjusted 1. So the laughter and maneuvers continue until someone attacks and she rolls a 17 with advantage and finally engages.
So, your opinions, please? Would you have ruled this differently? If so, how and why?
I've ruled this nearly exact senario almost identically with the banshee and tasha's hideous laughter. Effected by the incapacitated condition, but not the prone.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
I am somewhat surprised that tasha's hideous laughter doesn't check on immunity to charmed. I think as written being immune to prone probably does block the spell (like many 5e spells, it's not a model of clarity) but I'd probably let it work.
i don't think immunity to prone would block the incapacitated because when two conditions are dependent on each other for example the Giant Wasp and hypnotic pattern say some thing like " is [dependent condition] while [independent condition] in this way." or " While [independent condition] by this spell, the creature is [dependent condition]"
edit: weird fact, monsters can still move while under the effect of hideous laughter neither the prone or incapacitated prevent movement. If prone their speed is halved because they must crawl , if not prone their speed isn't halved. So something immune to prone can move quicker while laughing basically.
The banshee is incapacitated, but not prone. The banshee has no immunity that would prevent that part of the spell.
I went down the same road. The condition immunities are the only potential justifications I can see for not allowing it, and I don't find either of them convincing enough to overturn player agency and ingenuity.
Saying that the Banshee is unaffected by THL because of its immunity to being charmed would (just off the top of my head) open the door to anyone playing an elf to argue their racial ability granting them advantage on saves vs charm applies to the whole enchantment school.
Saying the Banshee is unaffected by THL because of its immunity to prone, while more convincing than the last argument, feels like ruling the letter of the law in clear violation of the spirit. The language of that one sentence, "...or fall prone, becoming incapacitated..." is the only place in the spell description which implies that incapacitation depends upon the prone condition. The rest of the wording of the spell's name and description imply that both conditions result from the "fits of laughter" that come with failing a wisdom save. The spell is not called Tasha's Hideous Knockdown, Tasha's Terrible Trip, or anything of the sort. And as Solarsyphon points out, there are counterexamples where one condition explicitly depends upon another.
It seemed to me then, and the consensus seems to be now, that the enchantment is targeted, the target gets a wisdom save, failing the save causes fits of laughter, fits of laughter cause both incapacitated and prone conditions independent of one another.
Thanks folks. I appreciate the benefit of your experience.